See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/319972196

Managerial support: Renewing the role of managers amidst declining union

support for employees

Article  in  Journal of General Management · October 2017

DOI: 10.1177/0306307017723313

CITATIONS READS

5 2,878

4 authors, including:

Antonio Travaglione Joshua Chang

Curtin University The University of Sydney
15 PUBLICATIONS   231 CITATIONS    20 PUBLICATIONS   213 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Chang on 09 November 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Article
Journal of General Management
2017, Vol. 43(1) 24–32
Managerial support: Renewing the role ª The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:

of managers amidst declining union sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0306307017723313
journals.sagepub.com/home/gem
support for employees

Antonio Travaglione
The University of Newcastle, Australia

Brenda Scott-Ladd, Justin Hancock and Joshua Chang

Curtin University, Australia

Abstract
This study investigates how Australian employees perceive managerial support and the influence of union membership on
their perception of managerial support using data from 4124 employed persons in Australia across a range of industry
sectors. The results indicate that employee perceptions of the work environment (control over working hours, job
security, pay equity and safety) influence their perceptions of managerial support, regardless of union membership. The
findings imply that managers have a critical role to play in supporting the needs of employees, particularly as organizations
confront the challenges posed by aging workforces, growing skill shortages and an increasingly diverse and mobile
workforce. This article addresses the call for organizations to provide more support to their employees from govern-
ments and management scholars. It also addresses the issue of managers taking on greater prerogative as employee
advocates in the light of declining union influence.

Keywords
employee engagement, employee relations, employee welfare, management development, organizational support

Introduction management to play a bigger role in supporting employees

(e.g. Brunetto et al., 2010; Pfeffer, 2010; Schein, 2009;
The relationship between managers and employees has
Shacklock et al., 2009), the pertinent question is whether
long presented a challenge worldwide, with a decline in
employees will perceive this support from management
support for employees as organizations shift from an
and if such support perceived to be similar to that coming
employee focus to a strategic focus (e.g. OECD, 2009; from unions. This can reveal if the role of unions is
Van Buren et al., 2011). Environmental changes have led
becoming diminished as organizations become increas-
to a decline in union power over the past several decades
ingly supportive of employees. These issues form the
(e.g. Baraghoshi and Bilginsoy, 2013; Bray and Macneil,
motivation for this study, which investigates how Australian
2011; Carter and Cooper, 2002; Judzik and Sala, 2013;
employees perceive managerial support and the influence
Sapelli, 2009), leading to increased working hours, higher
of union membership on their perception of managerial
stress levels and job insecurity (e.g. ACTU, 2013; Pollert
support. The study draws on data from 4124 employed
and Charlwood, 2009). The decline in union membership
persons in Australia across a range of industry sectors and
and influence calls for a re-evaluation of employer obli- uses multivariate analytical techniques, including domi-
gations to engage employees and support their welfare
nance analysis and hierarchical regression. Relationships
(Pfeffer, 2010; Schein, 2009) in lieu of union presence.
among demographic, attitudinal work environment vari-
Further challenges arise from increased migration which
ables and employee perceptions of support from manage-
adds to cultural and language diversity (e.g. Burgess et al.,
ment are tested.
2010; Kochan, 2006; Pfeffer, 2010; Verworn et al., 2009),
along with other demographic and societal changes. Gov-
ernments and organizations are not prepared to respond to
Corresponding author:
the foregoing challenges and have not developed long- Joshua Chang, Curtin Business School, Curtin University, Kent St, Bentley,
term strategies to maximize the potential of the labour WA 6102, Australia.
force (Verworn et al., 2009). Given the emphasis for Email: j.chang@curtin.edu.au
Travaglione et al.
Literature review
Managerial support
The need for mutual support between managers, leaders
and employees has recently attracted the attention of nota-
ble management scholars (e.g. Kurtessis et al., 2017; Van
Buren et al., 2011). The challenges from globalization,
potential threats to the environment, technological
advances and increasing pressure for social responsibility
need shared responses (Schein, 2009), and thus, there needs
to be a balance between the needs of the organization and
its members. Mutual dependency is fundamental to stake-
holder and social capital theories, which explain how orga-
nizations might address the conflicting expectations of
various stakeholders (Carroll and Buchholtz, 2008;
Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Van Buren et al., 2011) and
the mutual benefits and obligations that form part of the
employment exchange (Andriessen and Gubbins, 2009).
Mutual dependency is also recognized in perceived orga-
nizational support (POS), which refers to ‘the extent to
which employees believe that their organization values
their contribution and cares about their well-being’ (Eisen-
berger et al., 1986: 501).
Management support is an extension of POS. It recog-
nizes that mutual obligation is part of the employment con-
tract and that there may be times when managers are
required to support employees in dealing with challenges
they face, even when these extend beyond the workplace. It
is not just about providing skills, training, job opportunities
and fair pay but also about building a culture of trust and a
safe psychological environment that motivates individuals
and ensures their involvement and commitment (Boxall and
Macky, 2009). The relationship between employers
and their employees is one of mutual obligation (Boxall
and Macky, 2009; Johns, 2006), and in this context, manage-
rial support occurs when managers treat employees fairly,
build trust and consult employees regarding work matters so
they can build a relationship of mutual respect where
employees perceive that their needs are considered
and are acted on appropriately. Such support can also facil-
itate the communication and implementation of strategic
decisions (e.g. Dasgupta, 2015).
Improving the work environment
Studies suggest that giving employees some autonomy and
flexibility regarding working hours and having the ability
to work from home can improve work–life balance and
employee satisfaction (Shacklock et al., 2009). The down-
side is that if the expectations or workload from working at
home is too high, it can intrude into home life with negative
consequences (Schieman and Glavin, 2008). Studies of
supervisory support have identified that employee control
over work schedules and support are important moderating
factors (Beutell, 2010). For example, a study among 2801
American employees in relation to job demands and having
the available resources to do the job identified that good
relationships with the supervisor influenced work
25
scheduling and employee flexibility regarding the job,
which in turn affected both job satisfaction and work–life
satisfaction (Beutell, 2010). This occurs because supervi-
sors have the most direct contact with employees and so are
able to respond to their needs. However, we argue that
supervisors do not always have the decision-making
authority; thus, we extend managerial support in two ways.
Firstly, we include managers because they have the
decision-making prerogative to respond more flexibly to
employee needs. Secondly, we believe the support needs
to extend beyond just the job role and scheduling to take
into account reasonable non-job-related, or personal and
family, issues that affect an individual’s ability to perform.
This broader approach is borne of other studies. For exam-
ple, another US study of 2800 employees found that
increased flexibility improved worker effectiveness, which
correlated with job satisfaction, retention and improved
mental health (Jacob et al., 2008). Similar results emerged
from an Australian study of nurses and police (Brunetto
et al., 2010), which identified that supervisory support pro-
moted autonomy, improved job satisfaction and lowered
workplace stress. Flexible work offers benefits for both
employers and employees. Benefits for employers include
employee productivity, motivation, commitment, retention,
cost savings and enhanced workforce planning, while ben-
efits for employees include improved work–life balance,
better time management and less stress and more efficient
travel options (Industrial Relations, 2013). The Australian
Council of Trade Unions recently strengthened their push
to help employees access flexible work hours, in the light of
many families with both parents balancing roles in work
and care (Hurst, 2013).
Work issues that influence employee health and safety
and threaten the physical and psychological well-being of
employees include poor person–job fit, complaints, conflict
with colleagues, aggressive clients, high workloads, poor
management and inadequate supervision (Jackson and
Clements, 2006). Increased diversity in a workforce adds
complexity because of the differing expectations, lack of
understanding and communication issues that can be aggra-
vated by other forms of conflict, such as racism, homophobia
and intergenerational misunderstandings. Threats of layoffs
add to stress and other health problems, such as depression,
particularly for those disadvantaged by ethnicity, social sta-
tus or low skill levels. In this environment, unions argue they
still have a strong role to play in protecting the rights of
employees (Hepworth and Akerman, 2012).
Unions argue that a decline in their ability to repre-
sent employees contributes to reduced monitoring and
regulation of workplace health and safety (ACTU,
2012). Health and safety issues are complex, and man-
agers need considerable knowledge to actively regulate
the working environment and ensure employee health
and safety is not threatened. This is one area where
decisions that provide greater flexibility, choice and
inclusivity can provide an immense gain to both
employees and the organization. Moreover, managers
are well placed to understand the personal situation and
26
needs of each employee due to their observations and
contact with employees at the ‘coal face’.
The past few decades have seen a substantial growth of
insecure work in Australia, with only 60% of Australians in
full or part-time ongoing employment (ACTU, 2013). In
addition, privatization, corporatization and public–private
partnerships have generally transformed public service jobs
and seen job losses and sectoral jobs transfer, with major
jobs losses taking place in Australia in 2012 and 2013
(Peake, 2013). Job insecurity reduces employee perfor-
mance and commitment and increases voluntary turnover.
It also threatens income, social networks, the ability to plan
and structure many aspects of life and can affect employ-
ees’ mental and physical well-being, increase stress and
undermine job satisfaction, performance and commitment
to the organization (Sverke et al., 2002). Conversely,
employees who perceive that they have job security report
less stress, higher motivation and lower turnover (Fried
et al., 2003; Sverke et al., 2002). Job security increases
performance and commitment, whereas an insecure work-
force negatively affects attraction and retention, and limits
access to the best possible human resources needed for
success and sustainability (Barney, 2001; Barney and
Wright, 1998; Boxall, 1996). The foregoing review of how
employee perceptions of the work environment (defined as
control over hours, job security, safety and pay equity) can
positively influence perception of managerial support
enunciates the first hypothesis:
H1: Employee perceptions of the work environment
influence perceptions of managerial support.
Declining union influence
Union power in European and other Western countries has
been diminished over the past several decades (Baraghoshi
and Bilginsoy, 2013; Carter and Cooper, 2002; Sapelli,
2009), as in Australia (ABS, 2013; Bray and Macneil,
2011), due to environmental changes such as industrial
reorganization, globalization, technological change and
economic downturn (Catano, 2010). Goslinga and Sverke
(2003) noted that unions need to be adaptable to change in
order to survive. Union membership in Australia has been
in decline over the past three decades. While in 1979, just
over half (51%) of the Australian workforce were union
members, by 2013, less than a fifth (17%) of workers were
unionized, with steeper declines recorded for men (ABS,
2013). These changes have affected the influence of unions
considerably as well as the extent to which they can provide
support to employees in the workplace (Forsyth and Suther-
land, 2006). On one hand, managers have gained greater
control to make their organizations more efficient, cost-
effective and productive. On the other hand, this has
coincided with a reduction in union and employee power,
raising concerns about negative outcomes for employees,
such as reduced working conditions, job security, flexibil-
ity and remuneration and increasing workloads. While
Bray and Macneil (2011) point out the association between
lower union membership with a decline in collectivism and
Journal of General Management 43(1)
a rise in individualism, collective bargaining has evened
out some of the impact (Connolly et al., 2012) although,
given the current state of the market and the effects of the
global financial crisis, there are employees who have lim-
ited options. This can ultimately lead to a reduction in
employee performance, commitment and increased turn-
over (Sturman et al., 2003). If we accept this argument,
employees without union support might feel more precar-
ious and vulnerable in the current climate. A number of
groups fit into this category, such as women who carry the
greater burden of juggling a career with their role as home-
makers, older workers caring for elderly parents, migrants
without family support and single parents. These groups are
likely to be more concerned about the need for managerial
support. Hence, union membership may explain how
employees perceive the relationship between their work
environment (such as, control over hours, job security,
safety and pay equity) and managerial support, leading to
the second hypothesis:
H2: Union membership explains the relationship
between employee perceptions of the work environment
and perceptions of managerial support.
Sample and data collection
The sample was sourced from the 2009 Australia at Work
study conducted by the Workplace Research Centre (WRC)
at the University of Sydney. The study is funded by the
Australian Research Council and Unions NSW and is
advised by a board consisting of labour market and indus-
trial relations academics from around Australia. The survey
documented the findings of a total of 6801 respondents via
telephone interviews of up to 20 min and is compliant to
privacy principles under the Association of Market and
Social Research Organizations. Participation was anon-
ymous and voluntary, and the incentive for participating
was a 1-in-40 chance in winning an iPod. The sample is
weighted, using population estimates from the Australian
Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Labour Force Survey, according
to age, sex, location, labour force status and union mem-
bership. A subset of 4124 usable responses was used for
this study. The gender distribution was equal, with 50.5%
being male and 49.4% being female. The mean age was
between 35 years and 44 years (29%), with the second
largest group aged between 45 years and 54 years (30%).
Thirty-one per cent were union members, whereas another
20% indicated they had been union members in the past.
Measures
The quantitative survey contained 118 questions including
10 attitudinal items to gain information on work practices
and conditions, employment arrangements and industrial
relations. Selected items were used in this study. Three of
the items taken from the Australian Workplace Industrial
Relations Survey by Morehead et al. (1997) asked about
consultation, fair treatment and trust, and these formed the
managerial support construct. These items included ‘Man-
agers at my workplace consult employees about issues
Travaglione et al.
affecting staff’, ‘I feel that employees are treated fairly at
my workplace’ and ‘Managers at my workplace can be
trusted to tell things the way they are’. Additional items
were drawn from the Australian Survey of Social Attitudes
(Wilson et al., 2005), and these questions related to work-
place safety, pay equity against increased workload, control
over work hours and job security. Attitudinal responses
were measured using Likert-type scale responses, where
1 signified strongly disagree, 2 indicated disagree, 3 was
neutral, 4 stood for agree and 5 stood for strongly agree.
Negatively worded items were recoded so that positive and
negative response patterns aligned.
Demographic information included ordinal age cate-
gories, from 16 years to 24 years, 25 years to 44 years and
45 years and above, and ordinal education categories, rang-
ing from 1, which signified a participant had not completed
high school, to 8, signifying postgraduate qualifications.
For the purpose of multivariate analysis, non-ordinal vari-
ables were reclassified as dummy (binary) variables as fol-
lows: employees who were not union members were
denoted by (0) and union members denoted by (1); employ-
ees in the private sector were denoted by (0) and public
sector denoted by (1); employees in permanent positions
were denoted by (0) and casual positions denoted by (1);
employees in full-time positions were denoted by (0) and
part-time positions denoted by (1); and males were denoted
by (0) and females denoted by (1).
Analytical strategy
Multivariate analysis with SPSS18 was used to test the
relationships between the constructs and items. The first
step was to obtain the means and standard deviations for
each variable and exclude cases with missing data. Being
mindful that large sample sizes increase the power of the
data and can over-inflate the significance of relationship
and probability values, we examined the coefficient values,
which are the better indicators of relationships (Budescu,
1993; Miller et al., 2012). Thereafter, reliability analysis
was conducted to identify the construct of managerial sup-
port within the attitudinal variables.
The second step was to analyse the data using hierarch-
ical regression and dominance analysis. Testing for dom-
inance helps to address concerns about the reliability and
accuracy of coefficients by testing changes in the w2 of
competing models (Budescu, 1993; Miller et al., 2012).
Standardized coefficients are reported to demonstrate the
effect of any change, as these are less problematic than
unstandardized coefficients (Miller et al., 2012). Vari-
ables were centred to address concerns about uncertainty
in the relationship between the standardized coefficient
and predictor variables (Budescu, 1993). Despite argu-
ments about whether mean centring improves the stability
of measures (Komrey and Foster-Johnson, 1998), the
technique is widely accepted as an appropriate method
to avoid multicollinearity problems when testing for
effects (Hoyt et al., 2008).
Changes in the R2 value assessed the relative importance
of predictor variables in the competing models (Budescu,
27
1993; Miller et al., 2012). The analysis process used
hierarchical regression to add sequentially the control vari-
ables, the independent variables and the full mediation
model, as recommended by Aiken and West (1991). Med-
iation is identified when the addition of the final variable
significantly changes the relationship between the indepen-
dent and dependent variable (Aiken and West, 1991; Miller
et al., 2012).
Analysis and results
Data analysis
All variables were screened for normality, homogeneity of
variance and univariate outliers. A small number of outliers
were detected on four of the eight attitudinal variables,
though inspection of each case confirmed these as legiti-
mate outliers that were not problematic. A non-normal dis-
tribution pattern among some cases was also deemed
acceptable given the large data set and the robustness of
regression. It should be noted that the large sample sizes
increase the power of the data and can over-inflate the
significance of relationship and probability values. In this
instance, coefficient values provide better indicators of the
relationship. Reliability analysis was conducted to identify
the composite construct of managerial support, with three
items: ‘Managers at my workplace consult employees
about issues affecting staff’, ‘Managers at my workplace
can be trusted to tell things the way they are’ and ‘I feel that
employees are treated fairly at my workplace’, returning a
Cronbach’s a ¼ 0.824.
Next, the means and standard deviations for the compo-
site variable of managerial support, the single-item attitu-
dinal variables and demographic (ordinal and dummy)
variables were tested. The findings show that perceptions
of managerial support positively correlated to control over
when and how long to work, job security, perception of
safety at work and pay equity against workload. However,
perceptions of managerial support negatively (and signifi-
cantly) correlated to workers in the public sector, union
members and older employees. This suggests that workers
in the public sector, union members and older employees
perceive less management support. The correlation is
shown in Table 1.
Except for gender, all items significantly correlated with
union membership. Independent sample t-tests identified
that union members perceived they had significantly less
management support, less control over when to work, less
pay equity against workload and felt less safe at the work-
place. Significant differences in age groups suggested this
may be a moderating variable. However, cross-tabular
analysis revealed older workers were proportionally more
likely to be union members (15% if aged 16–24 years, 38%
if aged between 25 years and 44 years and 61% if aged 45
years or over); thus, age was maintained as a control vari-
able. It is worth noting that some relationship values appear
small, which can be explained by the large sample size.
Because of the increased risk of error, the more stringent
confidence interval of 99% was preferred.
28
Table 1. Descriptive statistics and correlations for all variables.

Variable M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Managerial Support © 3.88 0.83
2. Control over when to work 3.10 1.25 0.149**
3. Control over how long to work 3.04 1.18 0.150** 0.536**
4. Job security 4.12 1.05 0.251** 0.086** 0.153**
5. Safety at work 3.82 1.09 0.310** 0.197** 0.148** 0.114**
6. Pay equity against workload 2.64 1.20 0.273** 0.180** 0.154** 0.109** 0.180**
7. Sector 0.31 0.46 0.049* 0.076** 0.060** 0.121** 0.085** 0.165**
8. Employment status (perm/casual) 0.21 0.41 0.021 0.125** 0.081** 0.128** 0.039* 0.131** 0.048**
9. Employment status (full/part-time) 0.32 0.47 0.003 0.143** 0.151** 0.025 0.071** 0.095** 0.054** 0.388**
10. Union member 0.70 0.46 0.159** 0.185** 0.088** 0.054** 0.161** 0.193** 0.339** 0.153** 0.054**
11. Education 5.24 1.89 0.016 0.071** 0.007 0.065** 0.062** 0.090** 0.233** 0.065** 0.107** 0.104**
12. Age 2.26 0.71 0.070** 0.076** 0.045** 0.024 0.016 0.099** 0.166** 0.207** 0.091** 0.184** 0.060**
13. Gender 0.50 0.50 0.012 0.034* 0.047** 0.047** 0.045** 0.004 0.084** 0.087** 0.384** 0.007 0.022 0.027
Note: N ¼ 4124. © ¼ composite variable. Values in bold are significantly correlated with Managerial Support.
**p < 0.01 level; *p < 0.05.
Travaglione et al. 29

Table 2. Hierarchical regression analysis of the relationships Discussion

affecting managerial support.
The analysis supports hypothesis 1, as employee percep-
2 tions of the work environment (control over working hours,
1 Control and job security, pay equity and safety) were found to influence
Control independent 3
employee perceptions of managerial support. The support
Models variables variables Mediation
of hypothesis 1 is followed by the testing of hypothesis 2,
Control variables which was rejected as union membership was not found to
Age 0.065** 0.045* 0.036 explain employee perceptions of the work environment and
Sector 0.040 0.005 0.022 perceptions of managerial support. This implies that the
Independent variables
Control over when to 0.015 0.001
role of unions is diminishing as organizations become
work increasingly supportive of employees. In the past, unions
Control over how long 0.059** 0.063** provided a voice so that the concerns of employees were
to work raised and heard (Schein, 2009), which provides a psycho-
Job security 0.199*** 0.206*** logically and emotionally safer work environment (Rous-
Pay equity against 0.197*** 0.186*** seau and Aubé, 2010). Accordingly, some researchers
workload argue that managers should pick up the formal role of
Safety at work 0.246*** 0.238***
Mediator
employee advocate (Kochan, 2004; Sheehan et al., 2006),
Union membership 0.091*** especially when there is no union presence. Managers have
Model fit to confront and deal with employee issues that impact the
R2 0.004 0.195 0.202 workforce on a daily basis and often have to make deci-
Adjusted R2 0.003 0.193 0.200 sions on the spot and respond to the situation confronting
F value 8.01*** 82.75*** 75.50*** them. Managers tend to deal with employee concerns that
Note: All coefficients are standardized. N ¼ 2410. arise on a day-to-day basis, from work-related issues such
***p < 0.001; **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05. as stress, bullying, interpersonal conflict and risk of injury
to non-work-related issues such as concern about family
members, aging parents and financial stresses, to name a
Regression analysis few. The decline in union influence presents an opportunity
Hierarchical linear regression was used to test for dom- for managers to engage with and support employees and to
inance between the various models, and these are shown ensure that they feel they are valued members of an orga-
nization and provide them with a psychologically safe envi-
below in Table 2. Mediating effects explain ‘why’ that
ronment (e.g. Carmeli and Gittell, 2009). In other words,
relationship occurs (Frazier et al., 2004), and the first
good management can obviate the need for unions to pro-
step in testing for mediation is to ensure that the med-
vide a psychologically safe environment. However, Schein
iating variable is significantly influenced by the inde-
pendent variables, and this was found to be the case. (2009) and Pfeffer (2010) argue that there is too great a
The control variables are tested in model 1 and the focus on short-term financials by employers and the will-
independent variables are included in model 2. The third ingness to compromise on meeting employee needs will
model included union membership to assess for a med- catch up with organizations over the longer term. Thus, the
challenge is for managers to reinforce their role in support-
iating effect. Full mediation occurs when the mediator
ing employees, especially under conditions of declining of
variable negates the significance of the relationship
union influence.
between the independent and dependant variables, while
only partial mediation occurs if inclusion of the mediat-
ing variable leads to a significant decrease in the rela-
tionship (Baron and Kenny, 1986). Conclusion
After controlling for the effects of the potentially This article is expected to make a useful contribution to the
confounding background variables of age and sector, the literature in social capital theory and POS with the findings
results show that union membership only has a marginal suggesting that employee perceptions of the work environ-
effect on employees’ perceptions of control over how ment influence their perceptions of managerial support in
long to work (0.059 in model 2 to 0.063 in model 3), place of union membership. Managerial implications are
job security (0.199 in model 2 to 0.206 in model 3), applicable to organizations aiming to manage employee
pay equity against workload (0.197 in model 2 to 0.186 support. Based on the findings, we propose that managers
in model 3) and safety at work (0.246 in model 2 to should adopt the role of employee advocate in the light of
0.238 in model 3). These marginal changes are insuffi- declining union support for employees. This proposal is of
cient to claim even partial mediation. While the sample particular significance to managers that deal with day-to-
size was large enough to conduct a Sobel test, the lack day employee concerns that directly impacts the perception
of a significant mediation relationship and the non- of managerial support for employees, such as supervisors,
equivalence between the sample sizes did not warrant line managers and general managers. However, changing
it. ‘Control over when to work’ was found to be not expectations, legal boundaries and work frameworks to
statistically significant. improve flexibility and increased focus on safety and
30
security provisions raise doubts as to whether managers
have the appropriate skills to take on and effectively imple-
ment this broader role, which has considerable training
implications. This role requires that managers demonstrate
to employees that they are being supported in the work-
place, for example, by providing flexibility, job security, a
safe working environment, fair recognition, rewards and
mechanisms for surfacing employee concerns. Such factors
have implications for job satisfaction, reduced turnover,
absenteeism and improved productivity. Managers can
make a difference, but they require the discretion to do so
and the skills to re-engage employees and to an extent,
disengage with the balance sheet. This does not mean
ignoring the bottom line, but finding an optimized approach
that meets the needs of both employees and employers to
improve employee support.
There are some limitations to this study. The data for
this study were drawn from a larger archival data set, and a
number of the attitudinal responses were single-item
measures, which may be less robust than composite
measures. The data is collected from 2009 and employee
work environments, managerial support and union influence
may have shifted since. Notwithstanding, recent reports
show that union influence remains on the decline (e.g. ABS,
2013; Baraghoshi and Bilginsoy, 2013; Bray and Macneil,
2011), which is not expected to alter the validity of the
findings. As this study was conducted in Australia, the
applicability of the findings may not be relevant in countries
with distinct environmental and cultural contexts. A further
criticism that could be raised is an argument for within-
group analysis by demographic groupings. However, testing
for differences between age groups, gender and industry
sectors found no significant differences.
Given the potential for a shift of the provision of
employee support from unions to employers amidst
declining union power, as suggested by our findings,
future research can benefit from investigating how
employees conceptualize managerial support as a ‘surro-
gate’ of union support. Research to investigate managerial
intentions is also recommended, to find out whether orga-
nizations regard the decline in union power as an oppor-
tunity to take on the responsibility of providing employee
support or to unscrupulously exploit the situation by
reducing employee welfare.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflict of interest with respect
to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship and/or publication of this article.
References
Aiken LS and West SG (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and
Interpreting Interactions. Newbury Park, PA: Sage.
Andriessen D and Gubbins C (2009) Metaphor analysis as an
approach for exploring theoretical concepts: the case of social
capital. Organization Studies 30(8): 845–863.
Journal of General Management 43(1)
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013) Employee Earnings,
Benefits and Trade Union Membership, Australia, Catalogue
no. 6310.0, Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) (2012) Campaign:
Health and Safety. Speak Up for Health and Safety. Available
at: www.actu.org.au/campaigns/healthsafety/default.aspx
(accessed 29 April 2016).
Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) (2013) Secure Jobs.
Better Future. Available at: www.actu.org.au/Campaigns/Secur
eJobsBetterFuture/default.aspx (accessed 29 April 2016).
Australian Psychological Society (2009) Australians report
increased levels of anxiety. Available at: www.psychology.
org.au/Assets/Files/NPW-MR-Anxiety-2009.pdf (accessed
29 April 2016).
Baraghoshi Band Bilginsoy C (2013) Interstate variations in pri-
vate sector union density in the US. Journal of Labor Research
34(2): 180–202.
Barney J (2001) Resource-based theories of competitive advan-
tage: a ten-year retrospective on the resource-based view.
Journal of Management 27(6): 643–650.
Barney JB and Wright PM (1998) On becoming a strategic
partner: the role of human resources in gaining competi-
tive advantage. Human Resource Management 37(1):
31–46.
Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator vari-
able distinction in social psychological research: conceptual,
strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.
Beutell NJ (2010) Work schedule, work schedule control and
satisfaction in relation to work-family conflict, work-family
synergy, and domain satisfaction. Career Development Inter-
national 15(5): 501–518.
Boxall P (1996) The strategic HRM debate and the resource-based
view of the firm. Human Resource Management Journal 6(3):
59–75.
Boxall P and Macky K (2009) Research and theory on high-
performance work systems: progressing the high-
involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal
19(1): 3–23.
Bray M and Macneil J (2011) Individualism collectivism and the
case of awards. Journal of Industrial Relations 53(2):
149–167.
Brunetto Y, Farr-Wharton R, Ramsay RS, et al. (2010) Supervisor
relationships and perceptions of work—family conflict. Asia
Pacific Journal of Human Resources 48(2): 212–232.
Budescu DV (1993) Dominance analysis: a new approach to the
problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple
regression. Psychological Bulletin 114(3): 542–551.
Burgess J, Strachan G and French EL (2010) The future of man-
aging diversity in Australia. In: Strachan G, French EL and
Burgess J (eds) Managing Diversity in Australia: Theory and
Practice. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill, pp. 269–274.
Carmeli A and Gittell J (2009) High-quality relationships,
psychological safety, and learning from failures in work
organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior 30(6):
709–729.
Carroll AB and Buchholtz AK (2008) Business and Society:
Ethics and Stakeholder Management 7th Edition. Mason,
OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Travaglione et al.
Carter B and Cooper R (2002) The organizing model and the
management of change (a comparative study of unions in Aus-
tralia and Britain. Relations Industrielles/Industrial relations
57(4): 712–742.
Catano V (2010) Union members attitudes and perceptions about
their union (Winning a representational election following a
merger of four hospitals. Economic and Industrial Democracy
31(4): 579–592.
Connolly J, Rooney T and Whitehouse G (2012) Tracking pay
equity: the impact of regulatory change on the dissemination
and sustainability of equal remuneration decisions. Journal of
Industrial Relations 54(2): 114–130.
Dasgupta M (2015) Middle level managers and strategy: explor-
ing the influence of different roles on organizational perfor-
mance. Journal of General Management 41(1): 25–43.
Donaldson T and Preston LE (1995) The stakeholder theory of the
corporation: concepts, evidence, and implications. The Acad-
emy of Management Review 20(1): 65–92.
Eisenberger R, Huntington R, Hutchison S, et al. (1986) Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3):
500–507.
Forsyth A and Sutherland C (2006) From uncharted seas to the
stormy waters: how will trade unions fare under the work
choices legislation? The Economics and Labour Relations
Review 16(2): 200–215.
Frazier PA, Tix AP and Barron KE (2004) Testing moderator
and mediator effects in counseling psychology. Journal of
Counseling Psychology 51(1): 115–134.
Fried Y, Slowik LH, Shperling Z, et al. (2003) The moderating
effect of job security on the relation between role clarity and
job performance: a longitudinal field study. Human Relations
56(7): 787–805.
Goslinga S and Sverke M (2003) Atypical work and trade union
membership: union attitudes and union turnover among tradi-
tional vs atypically employed union members. Economic and
Industrial Democracy 24(2): 290–311.
Hepworth A and Akerman P (2012) ACTU targets psychological
risks. The Australian, 20 July.
Hoyt WT, Imel ZE and Chan F (2008) Multiple regression and
correlation technique. Rehabilitation Psychology 53(3):
321–339.
Hurst D (2013) Union push for flexible work hours appeals Syd-
ney Morning Herald 22 April. Available at: www.smh.com.au/
federal-politics/political-news/union-push-for-flexible-work-
hours-appeals-20130422-2i9pi.html (accessed 29 April 2016).
Industrial Relations (2013) Introducing workplace flexibility.
Available at: www.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.au/biz_res/
oirwww/pdfs/intro_workplace_flexibility.pdf (accessed 29
April 2016).
Jackson E and Clements R (2006) Workplace stress: what’s caus-
ing it and what can be done? The Australian Psychological
Society Ltd, InPsych, April 2006. Available at: www.psychol
ogy.org.au/publications/inpsych/stress_work/ (accessed 11
November 2009)
Jacob J, Bond J, Galinsky E and Hill E (2008) Six critical ingre-
dients in creating an effective workplace. The Psychological
Manager Journal 11(1): 141–161.
Johns P (2006) E-thics: the new moral methodology for business.
The Journal of Investment Compliance 7(1): 83–90.
31
Judzik D and Sala H (2013) Productivity, deunionization and
trade: wage effects and labour share implications. Interna-
tional Labour Review 152(2): 205–236.
Kochan TA (2004) Restoring trust in the human resource man-
agement profession. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources
42(2): 132–146.
Kochan TA (2006) Adapting industrial relations to serve
knowledge-based economies. Journal of Industrial Relations
48(1): 7–20.
Komrey JD and Foster-Johnson L (1998) Mean centering in mod-
erated multiple regression: much ado about nothing. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement 58(1): 42–67.
Kurtessis JN, Eisenberger R, Ford MT, et al. (2017) Perceived
organizational support: a meta-analytic evaluation of organi-
zational support theory. Journal of Management 43(6):
1854–1884.
Miller BK, Konopaske R and Byrne ZS (2012) From dominance
analysis of two measures of organizational justice. Journal of
Managerial Psychology 27(3): 264–282.
Morehead A, Steele M, Alexander M, et al. (1997) Changes at
Work: The 1995 Australian Workplace Industrial Relations
Survey. Canberra: Department of Workplace Relations and
Small Business.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) (2009) Migration, employment and integration
towards responsive, effective and fair migration policies.
Available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/9/43124357.pdf
(accessed 29 April 2016).
Peake P (2013) Public sector job cuts unprecedented inquiry told.
The Canberra Times, 21 Feb.
Pfeffer J (2010) Building sustainable organizations: the human
factor. The Academy of Management Perspectives 24(1):
34–45.
Pollert A and Charlwood A (2009) The vulnerable worker in
Britain and problems at work. Work, Employment and Society
23(2): 343–362.
Rousseau V and Aubé C (2010) Social support and affective
commitment to the organization: the moderating effect of job
resources adequacy and ambient conditions. The Journal of
Social Psychology 150(4): 321–340.
Sapelli G (2009) Industrial relations and the world economic
crisis in the context of globalisation: from Europe to the
world. The Economic and Labour Relations Review 20(1):
111–122.
Schieman S and Glavin P (2008) Trouble at the border? Gender,
flexibility at work, and the work-home interface. Social Prob-
lems 55(4): 590–611.
Schein EH (2009) Helping: an urgent new role for leaders. Ivey
Business Journal Online 73(5): 1–5.
Shacklock K, Brunetto Y and Nelson S (2009) The different vari-
ables that affect older males and females intentions to continue
working. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources 47(1):
70–101.
Sheehan CS, Holland P and DeCieri H (2006) Current develop-
ments in HRM in Australian organizations. Asia Pacific Jour-
nal of Human Resources 44(2): 132–152.
Sturman MC, Trevor CO, Boudreau JW, et al. (2003) Is it worth it
to win the talent war? evaluating the utility of performance
based pay. Personnel Psychology 56(4): 997–1035.
32
Sverke M, Hellgren J and Näswall K (2002) No security: a
meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its conse-
quences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 7(3):
242–264.
Van Buren HJ, Greenwood M and Sheehan C (2011) Strategic
human resource management and the decline of employee
focus. Human Resource Management Review 21(3): 209–219.
View publication stats
Journal of General Management 43(1)
Verworn B, Schwarz D and Herstatt C (2009) Changing work-
force demographics: strategies derived from the resource-
based view of HRM. International Journal of Human
Resources Development and Management 9(2/3): 149–162.
Wilson S, Gibson R, Meagher G, et al. (2005) Australian Survey
of Social Attitudes, ACSPRI Centre for Social Research. Can-
berra: The Australian National University.